Playing around with the formulae in here and the maximum triaxiality formulae there, if I set the eccentricities to the maximum values I get probabilities of up to ~8% for capture into the 3:2 resonance for some of the TRAPPIST-1 planets using the bare rock triaxiality. However these eccentricities are likely quite a lot higher than the true system, which results in decreasing probability of resonance capture.

According to our planet hunters talk actually we do not know whether tentative planet h detected by Spitzer has 20 days period it can have two different periods maybe even single transit of more distant planet

The TRAPPIST-1 system is the first transiting planet system found orbiting an ultra-cool dwarf star. At least seven planets similar to Earth in radius and in mass were previously found to transit this host star. Subsequently, TRAPPIST-1 was observed as part of the K2 mission and, with these new data, we report the measurement of an 18.764 d orbital period for the outermost planet, TRAPPIST-1h, which was unconstrained until now. This value matches our theoretical expectations based on Laplace relations and places TRAPPIST-1h as the seventh member of a complex chain, with three-body resonances linking every member. We find that TRAPPIST-1h has a radius of 0.715 Earth radii and an equilibrium temperature of 169 K, placing it at the snow line. We have also measured the rotational period of the star at 3.3 d and detected a number of flares consistent with an active, middle-aged, late M dwarf.

Isn't that a little too premature an announcement to make in that we know nothing yet about the atmospheres and gravities of any of the planets in the system? Besides, even accounting for possible thin atmospheres and weak gravities on all of the planets, we know zilch about any ocean/s on any of the worlds in the system, no?

Also am I correct to say that as we know not if any of the planets in the TRAPPIST-1 have ocean/s, we cannot yet rule out the possibility of life having survived perhaps even prospered due to the protection offered by the oceanic cover, yes? No?